Basics of
DISADVANTAGES
Experimentation
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
● Technique that focuses on
cause-effect relationships
● Enables researchers to identify
causal relationships as it leads to
the observation under controlled
conditions of the effects of
systematically changing one or
more variables through precise
instruments / tools
Psychological Experiments: objective
analysis & observations of phenomena
made to occur under controlled
situations.
- Objective = free from biases
EXPERIMENT ADVANTAGES
- Identifies the strength of casual
relationships.
- Inferential strength is derived
from the degree of control that
can be applied
- One / more variables can be under
the control of researcher /
experimenter
- Findings are applicable to
everyday life situations /
problems.
EXPERIMENT
- Lab findings are artificial +
tendency to generalize real life
situations
- Lab approach is time consuming
+ difficult to design
- Experimental approach is not
fully adequate to make it valid
and reliable measure of human
behavior because the later is too
complex
WHY EXPERIMENTS ARE
CONDUCTED?
- Test theories & provide database
for explanation of behavior
- See what happens in the absence
of a compelling theory [requires
no knowledge of theory or
existing database]
- Repeat / replicate previous
findings [extend previous
procedure by adding something
new while retaining something
old]

Research Variables
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
[IV]
- Stimulus variable
- Antecedent condition deliberately
manipulated to assess its effects
on behavior
- The condition the experimenter
chooses to vary
- Its values are set by the
experimenter, and not affected by
anything else that happens in the
experiment
- There must be at least 2 levels of
IV [music: classical & rock]
DEPENDENT VARIABLE [DV]
- Response variable
- Dependent measures
- Depends on the stimulus given
- Particular behavior expected to
change because of the
experimental treatment
- Outcome we are trying to explain
- Its values are assumed to depend
on the values of IV
- Change in IV = Change in DV
EXTRANEOUS VARIABLE
- Factors that are not the focus of
experiment, but can influence the
findings
- Neither intentionally manipulated
IV / DV measured as indexes of
the effect of the IV
- [Differences among subjects,
equipment failures, inconsistent
instructions]
- Confounding: happens when a
value of EV changes
systematically across different
conditions of an experiment
- Experimental results
cannot be interpreted with
certainty + causal
relationships cannot be
inferred
- Make sure no EV change along
the IV
RESEARCH PROBLEM
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
- Description of an issue currently
existing w/c needs to be addressed
- Provides context for the research
study + generates questions which
the research aims to answer
- Focal point of any research
- [The frequency of job layoffs is
creating fear, anxiety, and a loss
of productivity in middle
management workers]
Key Components: often have 3 elements
- Problem itself, stated clearly and
w/ enough contextual detail to
establish importance
- Method of solving the problem,
often stated as a claim / working
thesis
 - Purpose, statement of objective, [intends to explore +
and scope of the project being describe behaviors as they
proposed naturally occur]

Criteria ● Experimental: tentative

- Clearly indicate what is to be
investigated
- Actual statement may be in a
declarative or in question form
- Indicate the variables of interest +
specific relationship between
variables to be studied
explanation of an event / behavior
- Statement that explains the
effects of specified
antecedent conditions on a
measured behavior
Formulating Hypothesis: CRITERIA

FORMULATING HYPOTHESIS ● Synthetic statements: can either

be true / false [can be supported
HYPOTHESIS or contradicted]
- Thesis / main idea of an ○ Hungry students read
experiment slowly
- Statement about a predicted ○ Avoid non-synthetic
relationship between at least two statements [analytical /
variables contradictory]
- Non-scientific synonyms: ○ Analytical: always true
speculation, guess, hunch ○ Contradictory: always
- Statement of a research false. statements oppose
hypothesis is designed to fit the each other.
type of research design selected ○ We don’t need to conduct
an experiment because we
NON EXPERIMENTAL VS already know what the
outcome will be
EXPERIMENTAL
○ Can be stated in “if-then”
HYPOTHESIS
form

● Nonexperimental: statement of
● Testable statements: means for
predictions of how events, trait, or
manipulating antecedent condition
behaviors might be related - not a
& measuring the resulting
statement about cause-effect
behavior must exist
- Some do not typically
include a hypothesis
 ● Falsifiable statements:
disprovable by the research INTUITION: knowing w/o reasoning
findings - Not necessarily unscientific =
inferences drawn from intuition
● Parsimonious statements: simplest can sometimes violate scientific
explanation criteria
○ Not so many supporting - Most accurate if it comes from
assumptions experts; good hunches are really
an unconscious result of our own
● Fruitful statements: leads to new expertise in an area
studies
Operational Definitions
4 MODELS: Come Up with a
Hypothesis - Specifies the precise meaning of a
variable in terms of observable
INDUCTIVE MODEL: process of operations, procedures,
reasoning from specific cases to more measurements.
general principles - Operational: clearly describes
- Often used in science and math operations involved in
- Certain specifics first to reach a manipulating variables.
more general conclusion - Statements of operating
procedures, sets of instructions
DEDUCTIVE MODEL: reverse of that tell others how to carry out an
inductive experiment.
- From general principles to make
predictions about specifics OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS vs
instances DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
- Most useful with a
well-developed theory with “Anxiety”
clearly stated basic premises
Dictionary definition: state of concern or
SERENDIPITY: knack of findings that painful uneasiness about a future or
are not being sought uncertain event.
- Ivan Pavlov’s classical
conditioning - Adequate for everyday use but not
- Matter of knowing enough to use in the context of experiment
an opportunity because it does not tell how to
 produce different levels / values
of the variables.
- Don’t have procedures to follow
to make people anxious or
non-anxious.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
EXPERIMENTAL O.D.
- independent variable in detail
- Describes what exactly was done
to create various treatment
conditions of the experiment
- Includes all steps followed to set
up each value of the I.V.
MEASURED O.D.
- dependent variable; what we do to
measure
- Exact procedures followed to
assess the impact of different
treatment conditions
- Exact descriptions of specific
behaviors / responses recorded +
explanation how those responses
are scored
EVALUATING O.D.
RELIABILITY: consistency &
dependability
● If applied in more than one
experiment, they ought to work in
similar ways each time [EOD]
● “Hungry condition”: should
consistently show signs of hunger
[increased food-seeking behavior]
- Several sets of measurements
according to O.D. of D.V., we
should get the same results each
time
- Use standardized test that have
shown to be reliable
HOW TO CHECK RELIABILITY?
Interrater Reliability
- Have varying observers that take
measurements of the same
responses
- Agreement between their
measurements
- Can be statistically compared
[reliability coefficients]
- From 0.0 [only chance levels of
agreement] to 1.0 [perfect
agreement]
Test-Retest Reliability
- Comparing scores of people who
have been measuring twice with
the same instrument
- They take the test once, and take
it again [after a reasonable
interval]
Interim Reliability
- Different parts of a questionnaire,
test, or other instruments are
designed to assess the same
variable attain consistent results
[internal consistency]
● Split-half reliability: Involves
splitting test into two halves at
random & computing coefficient
reliability between scores
obtained on two halves
- Two halves should strongly
correlate if items are
measuring the same
variable
● Cronbach’s alpha [a]: statistical
test evaluating internal
consistency of entire set of items
- Most widely used method
for evaluating interim
reliability
- Considers the correlation
of each test item with every
other item
VALIDITY: actually studying the
variable we intend to study
- If researchers actually measure
what they intend to measure
- Necessary to provide evidence for
the validity of experimental
manipulation
- Manipulation check: provide
evidence for validity of
experimental procedure
HOW TO ESTABLISH EVIDENCE
FOR VALIDITY?
Face Validity
- Variables that can be manipulated
and measured fairly directly
- Least stringent type of validity =
does not provide any real
evidence
- Validity of MOD centers on the
question of whether we measure
what we intend to measure
- Effects of pupil size = we simply
use a ruler
Content Validity
- Degree to w/c content of a
measure reflects the content of
what is being measured
- Does the content of our measure
fairly reflect the content of the
quality we are measuring?
- Are all aspects of the content
represented properly?
Predictive Validity

- A measuring instrument yields

info allowing prediction of actual
behavior / performance

- Do our procedures yield info that

enables us to prejudice future
behavior? - they should if we are
measuring what we intend to
measure

Concurrent Validity

- Degree to w/c scores on

measuring instrument correlate
with another known standard for
measuring the variable being
studied

Construct validity

- An O.D. accurately represents the

construct it is intended to
manipulate
- Deals with transition from theory
to research application
- Start with the general idea of the
qualities that characterize the
construct we want to test
- We seek to find ways of putting
our idea to an empirical test